[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11871-S11872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1386. A bill to facilitate the remediation of contaminated 
sediments in the waters of the United States; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


               HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND LEGISLATION

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 years ago Congress directed EPA, in 
consultation with NOAA and the Army Corps, to conduct a comprehensive 
survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality in the United States. 
Sometime within the next few weeks, this long overdue report will be 
submitted to Congress. Because of the widespread contamination that 
EPA, working with the Army Corps and NOAA, has found, this report 
should sound an alarm for all of us. While we have made great progress 
on preventing pollution from many sources, we have severely neglected 
the problem of contaminated sediments. This contamination is a legacy 
of decades of hoping that pollution would flow down the drain or off 
the land and out of sight never to bother us again. But, now we know 
where a significant portion of it is and it's not going anywhere soon 
until we do something about it.
  The report, ``The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in 
Surface Waters of the United States,'' identifies approximately 96 
areas of probable concern [APC's]. In these watershed areas, sampling 
indicates there is a significant possibility of adverse aquatic 
wildlife or human health effects due to contaminated sediments. These 
APC's can be found throughout the country including Boston Harbor, the 
Detroit River, Green Bay, along the Mississippi, Puget Sound, San 
Francisco Bay, Seal Beach, Mobile Bay to the Middle Savannah, to name a 
few. This concentration of sites is surprising when one considers that 
of the 2,111 watersheds recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey, there 
is no sediment quality information on about 90 percent of them or about 
1,900 watersheds.
  Mr. President, this report has to be used with caution because it is 
only a first step. There is obviously insufficient information to make 
sweeping claims about the extent of contamination in sediments across 
the country, though EPA plans to develop the report into a national 
sediment inventory, a continually updated centralized assemblage of 
sediment quality measurements and state-of-the-art assessment 
techniques. However, ``based on the evaluation [in the report], 
sediment contamination exists at levels indicating a probability of 
adverse effects in all regions and states of the country.'' We must be 
cautious too about leaping directly from evidence of contamination to 
evidence of adverse effects due to that contamination. Unfortunately, 
Federal Government agencies have been slow to agree upon and provide 
sediment quality guidelines to inform States and the public about 
contamination that could cause adverse human health effects. This 
sluggishness has prevented development of the true picture of the 
potential risks contaminated sediments pose.
  In the Great Lakes, we have been concentrating our efforts on 
contaminated sediments for some time. We realized some time ago that 
our industrial legacy would need attention. That is why I authored the 
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, which formalized the process 
of developing remedial action plans [RAP's] in areas of concern [AOC] 
in the Great Lakes, where beneficial uses are impaired. These AOC's are 
not too dissimilar to the APC's described in the sediment report, 
because contaminated sediments are a significant component of the 
environmental and public health risk associated with AOC's. 
Unfortunately, despite all of the efforts by local and State 
governments to prepare RAP's, very little Federal money has gone into 
their development and even less into implementing them to clean up the 
waste and prevent further contamination. That needs to change.
  The Federal Government has to commit more of its resources to helping 
States and local governments clean up the industrial legacy that lurks 
beneath the water's surface in harbors and rivers across the Nation. To 
date, Federal agencies have been too reluctant to carefully examine the 
risks that these contaminated sediments pose for fear of the costs of 
cleanup and because the technologies necessary have not been adequately 
developed. But, as we have learned in the Great Lakes, these 
contaminated sediments are the source of much of the continuing 
pollution of our surface waters, as they recirculate pollutants into 
the water bodies that are then taken up by fish, birds, humans, and 
other living organisms. So, if our goal is to have fishable and 
swimmable waters again, we need to use every took that we can to begin 
addressing the cleanup.
  I am introducing legislation today to authorize the use of Superfund 
money to expedite remediation of contaminated sediment sites across the 
Nation. Many of the most persistent, bioaccumulative toxics found in 
contaminated sediments are derived from the same chemical feedstocks 
taxed to fill the Hazardous Substance Superfund, so it is most 
appropriate that those moneys be used to clean up sediments.
  The bill allows the EPA Administrator to use the Superfund to 
remediate contaminated sediments, but limits the amount to no more than 
$300 million annually. In expending funds, EPA is to give priority 
consideration to sediment sites which do or could adversely affect 
human health or the environment. Further, there is a preference given 
for sites in watersheds where the local governments are actively 
engaged in trying to prevent further contamination of the sediment and 
are willing to contribute 25 percent or more of the costs of 
remediation.
  Under the bill, EPA would have to do a better job of integrating its 
Water and Superfund programs' approach to contaminated sediments. 
Specifically, the hazardous ranking system used in Superfund to 
estimate the potential risks associated with a conventional terrestrial 
site will be revisited to determine if it adequately assesses risks 
associated with aquatic contaminated sediments. And, EPA would be 
required to promulgate final numerical sediment quality criteria for 
the 10 toxic, persistent, or bioaccumulative substances most likely to 
adversely affect human health and the environment by 2001.
  In addition, EPA would have to identify the 20 contaminated sediment 
sites that are most likely to adversely affect human health and the 
environment and have not been the subject of Federal or State response 
actions. And, to address the lack of data on contaminated sediments at 
Superfund sites, EPA would have to report on their occurrence and 
associated risk.
  Mr. President, I consider this to be a fairly modest bill. It does 
not set aside a specific percentage of the Superfund that must be spent 
on contaminated sediment cleanup, through I think that might also be 
helpful. And, it does not place great demands on Federal agencies, 
States or local governments. What it does do, however, is seek to bring 
resources and attention to bear on a very pressing problem. This 
problem has been clearly illustrated in EPA's report and it is a 
tenacious one that will not get any smaller. Unfortunately, our current 
system lets contaminated sediments fall between the regulatory and 
environmental policy cracks in the pier. And, there it will stay on our 
harbor and river bottoms, polluting fish, water, and vegetation until 
we act.

[[Page S11872]]

  I urge my colleagues from all parts of the country to consider 
cosponsoring this legislation, but particularly want to encourage the 
attention of Senators from coastal areas or from States with 
environmentally sensitive and industrialized watersheds. I believe that 
the approach taken in this bill is a necessary first step toward 
cleaning up contaminated sediments and I will be working to incorporate 
this into whatever Superfund reauthorization bill comes before the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1386

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 127. REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.

       ``(a) Sediment Quality Criteria.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than January 1, 2001, after 
     consultation with the States and Indian tribes, the 
     Administrator shall establish final numerical sediment 
     quality criteria for the 10 toxic, persistent, or 
     bioaccumulative substances that the Administrator determines 
     are most likely to adversely affect human health and the 
     environment.
       ``(2) Review.--Every 3 years after the date on which 
     criteria are established under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) the Administrator shall review the list of substances 
     compiled under paragraph (1);
       ``(B) after consultation with the States and Indian tribes, 
     add or remove substances from the list based on the risks of 
     adverse effects to human health and the environment 
     (including the risks of adverse developmental, reproductive, 
     and transgenerational effects); and
       ``(C) not later than 3 years after the date on which a 
     substance is added to the list under subparagraph (B), 
     establish final numerical sediment quality criteria for the 
     substance.
       ``(b) Revision of Hazard Ranking System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall revise 
     the hazard ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A) 
     to ensure that the hazard ranking system more accurately 
     assesses the risks to human health and the environment from 
     aquatic sites with contaminated sediments (as that term is 
     applied for the purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))).
       ``(2) Scope of assessment.--To ensure more accurate 
     assessments of health and environmental risks at aquatic 
     sites with contaminated sediments, the assessment referred to 
     in paragraph (1) shall not--
       ``(A) include consideration of the costs of carrying out 
     response actions; or
       ``(B) require identification of the source of a release.
       ``(3) Transition provision.--The hazard ranking system in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this section shall 
     continue in effect until the effective date of the revised 
     hazard ranking system required by this subsection.
       ``(c) Expenditure of Funds for Response Actions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for each fiscal year, the Administrator may expend up to 
     $300,000,000 of funds appropriated out of the Hazardous 
     Substance Superfund established under section 9507 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purposes of carrying 
     out response actions and other corrective actions at 
     facilities containing contaminated sediments (as that term is 
     applied for the purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))).
       ``(2) Priorities.--In expending funds under paragraph (1), 
     the Administrator shall give priority to facilities, a 
     release from which has adversely affected or could adversely 
     affect human health or the environment, in the following 
     order:
       ``(A) A facility in a watershed with respect to which--
       ``(i) a program has been or is being implemented that has 
     significantly reduced or is significantly reducing or 
     preventing the deposition into sediment of a persistent and 
     bioaccumulative toxic substance from the watershed; and
       ``(ii) a State or local government having jurisdiction over 
     a portion of the watershed contributes 25 percent or more of 
     the response costs.
       ``(B) A facility in a watershed with respect to which only 
     subparagraph (A)(i) applies.
       ``(C) A facility in a watershed with respect to which only 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) applies.
       ``(D) A facility in a watershed with respect to which 
     subparagraph (A) does not apply.
       ``(d) Hazard Ranking System Scoring Package.--
       ``(1) Identification of facilities.--From the comprehensive 
     national survey of data regarding aquatic sediment quality 
     conducted under section 503(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1271(a)), the 
     Administrator shall identify the 20 facilities containing 
     contaminated sediments (as that term is applied for the 
     purposes of section 118(c)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7))) that are most likely to 
     adversely affect human health and the environment and that 
     have not been the subject of any Federal or State response 
     action or other corrective action.
       ``(2) Scoring package.--After identifying the facilities 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator, not later than 3 
     years after the date of enactment of this section, shall--
       ``(A) prepare a comprehensive scoring package under the 
     hazard ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A) for 
     each facility, unless a State or remedial action planning 
     committee objects to the conduct of the assessment necessary 
     for the scoring in an area or watershed under the 
     jurisdiction of the State or committee; and
       ``(B) report to Congress the results of each scoring 
     package prepared under subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Criteria for Determining Priorities Among Releases.--
     Section 105(a)(8)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9605(a)(8)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon 
     at the end the following: ``, except that criteria and 
     priorities under this paragraph shall not be based on the 
     extent to which the President is able to identify 1 or more 
     potentially responsible parties or 1 or more specific sources 
     of a release''.
       (c) Inclusion in Report on Monitoring of Aquatic Sediment 
     Quality.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 1271(b)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Each report shall include 
     information on all facilities containing contaminated 
     sediments that are listed on the National Priorities List 
     under section 105(a)(8)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9605(a)(8)(B)).''.
       (d) Report on Hazard Ranking System.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report assessing the extent to which the hazard 
     ranking system referred to in section 105(a)(8)(A) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(A)) (as revised 
     in 1990) has achieved the objectives specified in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of section 105(c) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9605(c)).
       (2) Contents.--The report shall include a comprehensive 
     assessment of the number and type of aquatic facilities that 
     have been scored under the hazard ranking system (as revised 
     in 1990) and the level of risk that the facilities pose to 
     human health and the environment.
                                 ______